A Denver manufacturing company owned by a devout Catholic family got a temporary reprieve from provisions of the Affordable Health Care Act they argued infringed on their religious liberties — just as the mandate is set to take effect.

Starting Wednesday, any employer-sponsored health care plan renewed after this date must offer free access to eight services classified as preventive care for women, including FDA-approved contraception and sterilization procedures. Some companies did not offer these services at all under their health care plans, while others had to pay a deductible or co-pay.

Members of the Newland family, which owns Hercules, said their complaint that they are practicing Catholics who seek to run their company in a way that reflects their religious beliefs as formed by the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.

They argued that it would be sinful and immoral for them to provide abortifacient drugs, contraception or sterilization through the health insurance coverage they offer.

At least 22 other similar federal lawsuits are pending across the nation.

Some legal experts say the preliminary injunction will influence the other cases, but others disagree.

But this is just the first of many steps, said Jennifer Hendricks, professor of law at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

“All it does is set pervasive precedent,” she said. “It’s not binding because it’s a district court.”

The ruling will most likely be appealed to the 10th District Court of Appeals, she said. Appellate and Supreme Court decisions will have the binding precedent.

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains expressed deep disappointment with the court decision.

“In 2012, it’s ridiculous to be having to have this fight over birth control,” spokeswoman Monica McCafferty said. “No one is forcing anyone to take birth control. We’re talking about health insurance and the benefits available.”

According to a recent Hart Research Poll, 56 percent of voters believe that this is an issue of women’s health care and access to birth control, and 36 percent believe it is a matter of an employer’s religious liberty.

The U.S. government argued that the Hercules lawsuit should be dismissed because it would against the public interest.

It would “undermine (their) ability to effectuate Congress’s goals of improving the health of women and children” and to equalize that coverage of preventative services for women and men “so that women who choose to do so can be part of the workforce on an equal playing field with men,” according to court documents.

Kane disagreed, writing that such interests “are countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion.”

In their complaint, the Newland family cited donations of hundreds of thousands of dollars to Catholic parishes, schools, evangelical efforts and charitable causes, averaging nearly $60,000 a year since 2008.

Since 2010, the Newlands have used a program at their business created by the Spitzer Center for Ethical Leadership, training their management staff to implement principles based on their religious ethical beliefs.

Beth Starbuck, features editor at VeracityStew.com who has written on women’s rights, said it is disturbing that women’s employers might be able to inject themselves into health care decisions.

“What if an employer said they didn’t agree with drugs of any kind based on their religious convictions,” she said in an email interview. “Should they be allowed to deny their employees life-saving medications? I think this would be a door that would be very difficult to close.”